date. but at the time at which made the andy coulson appointment, i think i'm right that he was the only tabloid editor available. >> now, the initial interviews if that's a correct description were carried out by others as we know, but how many did you see as part of this process? how many individual? >> how many people did i see? know dick or who -- harry who's been out of, edited have conversations with them. there was someone senior from a newspaper. there was someone else very seen at bbc. there was his tabloid journalist journalist. this is a guessing game going with a friend in me. there were four people.

there may have been other suggested. i think the situation was we had a very effective communicator clearly we wanted though to strengthen the operation. people are being suggested and propose all time. of those four i can were personally talking to. >> paragraph 225 mr. cameron, you explain that assurances were obtained from mr. coulson in a meeting with ed llewelyn, is that correct? >> that is my understanding, yes. >> can we be clear was that something that was communicated to you in about march 2007? namely, that they have specifically asked for assurances? >> yes. ed llewelyn is my chief of staff, was my chief of staff. when you are trying to hire someone like this you have to keep matters very tight. you don't want it to lead. it didn't leak eventually.

so i would talk to edward about his interview, yes. >> and mr. osborne's evidence was that he asked for and obtained assurances. were you aware of that? >> i don't recall, but if george says that, i've got no reason to doubt. as i put into my evidence i remember the edward llewelyn issue. i suspect george did the same thing. >> how important it was mr. osborne's advice in relation to this process? were you reliance on in? >> it was important. george and i worked very closely together. he thought this was a good idea. but as the state department and elsewhere, this was my decision. i take full responsibility for it. and no, i don't try and shuffle off in responsibilities to anybody else.

>> in paragraph 237 of your statement, mr. chairman, -- mr. cameron, you say you are sure that you would have discussed his appointment. that's mr. coulson's appointed, with rebekah wade. to be clear by this time may 2007, we have accounted, catheter, pardon me, as much of your friend? >> yes, i think it would. as i say in evidence, i can't recall when i discussed it with there. whether it was before, during or after, but i'm sure i would have at some stage had a conversation with her about it. >> can you remember how many conversations? >> no. spink might it have been more than one or not? >> i don't think so. the process was george, we both met him before.

i met andy coulson when he was editor of "news of the world." we both got the impression he was very effective, very effective individual. george mason after he had resigned as editor of the "news of the world." i made the decision to employ him. i asked for these assurances, just be clear, in my evidence. >> in your discussions with mrs. brooks, were you seeking some sort of reference from her or was it far more informal? >> i wasn't seeking a reference. i mean, when you're employing some, like this within an editor of a newspaper, you can't seek sort of formal references. i'm sure i would have asked, you know, how effective he would be. but it may well have been, this conversation may well have taken

place after i made the decision. i can't recall exactly when the conversation took place but in the end it was my decision. i was satisfied this was the right thing to have a former tabloid editor to help us with our media and communications. and it was my decision. >> back to live coverage of theo british phone hacking investigation now as testimony continues with prime minister david cameron. >> answer about this issue of social contact between myself and my wife and rebecca and charlie brooks. and mrs. cameron keeps, perhaps a better weekend diary record than i do. and she points out that we were only in the constituency 23 weekends in 2008, 23 weekends in 2009 and, i think, 15 in 2010. and she reckons we probably didn't see them more than on average once every six weeks, so that is a better answer than what i was able to give youh.

earlier.h. >> according to her diary? >> yes. in 2008 and '9 we're basically doing alternate weekends in london and in our house in the constituency for all sorts of reasons, and so that -- i couldn't recall that when you asked me the question but seeing that i can then think once every six weeks, perhaps a little bit more is probably about right. >> the great value of wyomings@(@á wyomings -- wives, mr. prime minister.ú.ú. >> indeed.ú.ú. >> can i move forward,@.@, mr. cameron.@.@. you're now in downing street@.@. and there's a conversation withh. mr. clegg about mr. coulson. how strongly did he express his concerns to you about mr. coulson? >> i don't remember it being particularly strong, but he did raise the question and can i worked with andy coulson now for

a good period of time. i thought he would do the job well, and so i had no hesitation in remembering him. that's how i remember the conversation going.j.j. >> what was the basis, if anyj.j. for his concerns as he expressed them to you? >> um, as far as i recall it was just, you know there has been controversy about this. are you, you know convinced that he's the right man for the job? >> and did he elaborate on the controversy or not? >> i don't remember. i don't remember the conversation in any great detail. i think he was just, he wanted to register the point. >> was it part of a wider conversation about other matters, or was it a conversation devote today this one issue? >> i don't recall that. i think -- it was i think a specific conversation. it may have been us wanting to

make shoo people were as it were, sort of coalition-friendly. so that may have been an additional concern. >> okay. were similar concerns expressed to you directly by anybody else to the best of your recollection? >> well, i've -- if there were you know, some people did have concerns. i can't remember exactly who can when. but as i say, you know, this was a controversial appointment. i've read in some of these books about me a number of people who made these these points. i don't recall many specifics but clearly some people did have concerns yes. >> with and were they concerns expressed from within your own party? >> um, i think there might have been one or two. i think there might have been a specific mp, i think andrew -- [inaudible] but that's something i recall directly, it's something that's been pointed out to me that he

may have expressed concerns to me. >> and in terms of quantity, approximately how many people fall into this group of expressing concerns to you? >> i couldn't put a number ofen it, but not, you know -- a handful of people, i think it would be. >> did you have any private conversations with rupert murdoch in 2008 and 2010 about this issue? >> not that i recall no. i mean, i was very happy with andy coulson's work, and i had been planning on the basis that if we won the election he would come into number 10 downing street. i don't remember any conversations with -- i don't recall any conversations with mr. murdoch about it. >> mr. cameron the issue of clearance procedures, paragraph 240 of your statement, page 04173 and following, and there's also a letter which is in the addendum bundle we've prepared for you under tab, um, 34.

>> yes. >> it's from the cabinet office. the letter from the cabinet office is not very specific, but it says in respect to pm's official spokesman, six vote holders between january 2006 and may 2010 three previous holders of the servant already had dv developed vetting, two others two -- one special adviser and one servant -- had dv granted about three months after taking out post, and one special adviser had dv granted just over seven months after taking up post. so mr. coulson, of course, wasn't a civil servant he wasn't already dved obviously, so he fell within the special adviser category as far as there is a category here s that right?

>> i think that's right. and i think what this letter shows is it wasn't unique that he wasn't immediately dv'd. i looked at this quite closely. i wasn't involved. the issue about who's vetted to what level is an issue for the civil service, not the prime minister. the decision was taken i think by jeremy haywood not by me. but i'm absolutely convinced this is a red herring. the decision was made by the civil service, it wasn't abnormal as we find from this letter a similar person with a similar background wasn't dv'd immediately, and the reason why he was was a perfectly rational and sensible one, when we had the east midland bomb plot, it was clear we needed more people who were in the communications job specifically to have the higher level highest level security clearance so they could help us deal with these issues. i know it's one of these things

where people are sort of looking for abnormality. i think there is none, and i think gus o'donnell gave a clear explanation of this in front of the inquiry. >> i think we can short circuit anytime these terms. in terms of developed vetting, that has nothing to do with you, it has everything to do with the civil service, the head of the secretary, is that correct? >> yes. >> may i move forward to -- >> also, there was nothing inappropriate about somebody who had not undertaken or undergone developed vetting from having occasionally access to top secret material, and that's also clear -- >> i think that is important. the lower level allows long-term, frequent access to secret material or occasional/control to top secret material. so again, another thing that's been put around that's i think been dealt with -- >> well, i'm grateful. it was raided with lord o'donnell, and -- raised with

lord o'donnell and he offered to insure we got the information, and i'm grateful to have it. >> "the new york times" piece mr. cameron, refers to september 2010. were you made aware of it at the time or shortly thereafter? >> i can't remember the exact sequence of events that day but, yes, i was made aware of it, and i think the key point is that andy coulson directly denied and a statement was put out on his behalf by number 10 downing street about this accusation. so that, i think is pretty clear. >> although the accusation which we can't go into in any detail for obvious reasons related directly to him, didn't it? >> that's right, yes. but there was an instant and immediate denial. >> but you didn't return to him for any direct assurances, did you? >> i don't recall exactly the conversations that took lace. it was on the day -- that took

place. it was on the day i moved into number 10 downing street after the birth of our daughter. so that's the memory i have from that day rather than anything around this. but i'm absolutely clear he made an outright denial and that was that. >> were you aware that in september 2010 and this is a question coming from another core participant dac john yates had offered to brief you about the nature of the metropolitan police service response to the article in the thy times? >> yes. -- in "the new york times." >> yes. ed lieu well eleven my chief of staff, made me aware of it as he was responding, and he responded, i think quite properly saying this would not be appropriate, and i think john yates has accepted that explanation in front of the home affairs select committee. so i think that's pretty clear. >> so we understand, why was it not appropriate? >> well, i think because there

was the potential of an investigation following this allegation in "the new york times"' article. i think in terms of just the perception that there would have been if i was offered a special briefing by the metropolitan police, i think that would be inappropriate. now, i'm sure metropolitan police wouldn't have done anything inappropriate, but it would have given the appearance of at least being inappropriate and so ed lieu wellen declined the request, and john yates said -- and i think the words are ha that was understandable and -- that that was understandable and sensible, i think he said, and gus o'donnell, the cabinet secretary, he's looked into this and judged that ed lieu llewellyn judges -- judged this. sorry. john yates said the offer was properly and understandably

rejected. those are the words he used. he understood that while it can be appropriate to brief ministers on operational issues, it wouldn't have been in this on this occasion. sorry. >> did you have any further conversations with mr. coulson about these hearts before his resignation or not -- about these matters before his resignation or not? >> i obviously had a number of conversations with him about his impending resignation and what follow from "the new york times" article, that i know you've looked at s the police then had an initial look to see if they should investigate again and said they shouldn't, then they had another look and again concluded that they shouldn't, and then the grand prosecution service on, i think the 10th of december said they weren't going to take it any further. so again, these weren't just assurances accepted by me, as it were, there were others that took this view. then really this was the start of the process whereby andy

coulson was becoming clear that as he put it, when the spokesman needs a spokesman it's time to move on. he was finding his job was impossible to do because of all these stories and the rest of it, and obviously o i had a number of discussions with him about, about his departure. >> and mrs. brooks told us in evidence that she had a conversation with you about phone hacking but not about mr. coulson in late 2010. do you remember anything about that? >> i don't really remember the specifics. i saw in her evidence that this was perhaps something to do with me asking a question about some of these civil cases and what was happening. i suspect it could have been that. i mean, this was an issue that was, obviously, being discussed. it was a controversial issue with all these civil cases and the rest of it and i expect i could have asked some questions about that, but i don't recall the specifics. >> without dealing with specific

individuals, we heard mr. miliband say that the whole hacking saga was i think in his words, a failure of the establishment. is that a view which you share or not? >> i think it's, um, there are lots of failures involved. there was the failure of the newspaper to prevent it in the first place, there was the failure of the police properly to investigate it, there was the failure of select committees and the like to get to the bottom of it. you know, i think there was a series of failures and it took if you like, a sort of all-cataclysmic event which was the revelations, the appalling revelations about what happened to milly dowler's family before the whole thing really got opened up in the way that it should have done. >> do you see this, this saga as an illustration perhaps a

microcome of the issue we discussed earlier on today namely overcloseness between politicians and the press? >> well, it's difficult that, because to be fair to parliament, it did hold an investigation. the select committee looked at this. um, but for whatever reason neither the select committee nor the police, nor the press complaints commission got to the bottom of it. and i think, you know, all of those organizations have to ask well, why not? >> probably right to say the ball started to roll rather faster when the police and the cps decided that they would as it were reopen the entire case until the operation started. >> yes. >> that got the ball going which overcame the initial momentum. >> yes. >> of course, the revelations of

july created the mushroom that it has become i agree. but it's probably fair to say to the police that, actually they had started before that revelation occurred. >> that is absolutely right. that is a good point to make. >> mr. cameron can i move on to a separate matter, the whole issue of the bskyb bid. >> yes. >> and we're now at paragraph 158, please, of your witness statement, page 04145. >> yeah. >> can i ask you please about your own personal attitude to the bid, were you in favor of it or not? >> my view about this and about all these sorts of things is in a free market enterprise economy you should allow mergers, takeovers, acquisitions to go ahead unless there is a lick interest in -- a public interest in them not going ahead. so i could quite understand why

news corporation would want to make this acquisition, but there were important processes it had to go through; competition, plurality and the rest of it. so that was my view, it was very important that happened. >> from a policy perspective were you broadly on side? would that be a fair characterization? >> well, i wouldn't -- as i say, i don't think you should stand in the way of sensible corporate moves unless there's a public interest against it. from a political point of view as i think the chancellor said from a political -- not a policy pint of -- point of view, this was our potato. we had half of the conservative press against us and the other half in favor, and whoever was going to adjudicate on this had a very very difficult job to do. >> concerning your media background, it was the sort of issue with which you'd be familiar. were you of the school of thought, well they already own 39.1%, if it raises any issue the competition issue, but it doesn't on the face of it raise

a plurality issue? >> i think that my sense was that the european union had ruled that for all intents and purposes sky was already controlled by news corporation, and certainly from my experience at carlton when we were competing with sky you certainly felt that sky was pretty much controlled by news corporation. so that wasn't so much the issue, it was what does this mean for media plurality what does it mean for the provision of news, what does it mean for those considerations? i was very important, they were probably -- [inaudible] and that is, in the end, what happened. >> do you recall having discussions with mr. osborne about these matters? >> obviously, we discussed it on the day that vince cable's remarks were made public, and, um, so there was a discussion over the what we were going to do, um, as a government to deal with that. in terms of other discussions, i don't recall any, but, you know,

we discussed lots of things, so i wouldn't be at all surprised if we hadn't talked about it in passing. >> are you sure in your mind that the date of the formal announcement of the bid which we know to be the 15th of june 2010, was the first you heard of it? >> that is my, um that's my recollection. as i say in my witness statement, i can see there's some press speculation in advance of this, but i don't recall any discussions about it or knowledge about it in advance. >> and as for the culture secretary, this is paragraph 1766j6j of your statement, you say you6j6j don't remember any specific conversations with him.6k6k but are we to understand by that6k6k it's possible that in general6k6k policy terms the merits of the bid might have been discussed with him? >> well, i don't recall discussing it with him but as i'm sure we'll come on to, he did send me some notes about it.

but i don't i don't recall specific conversations. >> well, the notes you refer to, there's one on the 18th of june, paragraph 181 at the bottom of page 04151, and you've kindly set out the text of it on this page 04152. >> yes. that's right. >> when it -- not particularly revealing. he says -- commenting on news corp.'s land to buy out the 61% of sky they don't own on the grounds there was a competition issue for regulators and not ministers. and that, of course, was right although therek were, of course, additional plurality issues. it's the memorandum of the 19th, november 2010. >> just before you move on from that, just i hadn't really spotted this, but it might be worth picking up. the one thing mr. hunt says in

this, he goes back to the issue about whether your view about the bbc changed in opposition to government following nick clegg!=!= sending out signals publicly and privately that our rhetoric will be more generous to the bbc than it was in opposition? does that suggest that there had been discussion about that general topic presumably as part of the coalition discussions? >> re, i think that's -- yes, i think that's probably correct although what we achieved in government was a long-term license fee freeze and, actually, the rhetoric about bbc salaries, particularly the director general's that had been very high, we've kept that up because that's important. i would say the note, it is a sort of, you know, it was a perm note to me, it's interesting that he says, you know he stays clear of commenting competition issue not for ministers. he was demonstrating the

difficulties and dangers of being a minister and dealing with this. >> that stage, of course, the bids lay with dr. cable and not with dcma. >> yes. >> on the 9th, december 2010, that of course, was still the state of affair thes. >> yes. >> the private memorandum as sent to you we've looked at very carefully already with two other witnesses. is it the position that it was received on your e-mail system but you simply don't remember reading it or what? >> no. it wasn't received on my e-mail system. as i said, really, the notes i get all go into my box. the issue here is i don't particularly remember this note and crucially, i didn't want recall its existence on the day of the 21st of december when we were making this, um decision. and i, you know, say that frankly.

i, you know, obviously if i had recalled it, i would have fed it into the system, as it were. but as i'm sure we'll come on to, pretty clear from the legal advice we had that that wouldn't have made any difference to the outcome. >> moving forward then to the 21st of december, we're going to look at the events of that day in more detail in relation to this note, but had you recalled the note? is it your evidence, mr. cameron, that you would have drawn it to a lawyer's attention? >> yes. because what happened on the day of the 21st was obviously i was presented with a situation i didn't want. i had the business secretary who'd been recorded saying something that was, you know, not acceptable in a quasijudicial position to say he was, he declared war on one of the participants in this deal. and so i had a problem which i had to deal with which is what to you do? and i had a relatively short period of time in which to deal

with this issue. and at the as we went through the process of trying to work out the correct answer someone raised the issue of what jeremy hunt had said publicly because of what vince cable had said publicly, and we went and checked his public statements. now, of course at that moment if i'd recalled the private note, we could have put the private note into play as well. but my contention is what's in the private note is not really different to what he said publicly. indeed, what he said publicly is more be effusive and i think it's newsworthy that we've got this statement from the government lawyer, paul jenkins, who says very clearly i'm quite clear that my advice to sir cuts would not -- gus would not have been any different had i seen the note at the time. jeremy hunt appears to have been providing his personal opinion to the prime minister at a time when he -- so i do think this has been an area of great

controversy, but my argument is we reached the decision to transfer that part of vince cable's department to jeremy hunt. the suggested -- it was suggested by the permanent secretary at number 10 downing street, it was recommended by the cabinet secretary and it was cleared by the legal advice received by the cabinet secretary, it's now been clarified even further. so i accept there is controversy, but i think the backing of, as it were, two permanent secretaries and a hour -- >> we will leave this british phone hacking hearing at this point as the u.s. senate is about to gavel in to start the day. quick programming note that you can see the leveson committee hearing and all the previous hearings online at c-span.org. >> you're watching c-span2 with politics and public affairs. weekdays featuring live coverage of the u.s. senate. on weeknights watch key public policy events and every weekend the latest nonfiction authors and book on booktv. you can see past programs and get our schedules at our web site, and you can join in the

conversation on social media sites. >> well more debate is expected today on the farm and food programs bill. no agreement has been reached yet regarding amendments. and now live to the senate floor here on c-span2. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. god you are our god. eagerly we seek you, longing to see your

strength and glory. today, assure the members of this body of your love and give them our unshakable confidence in your providential leading. lord teach them what they should think and do, as you illuminate their path so that they will not stumble. as you have led this nation through troubled times in the past, be now to us our source of life and light and wisdom. inspire us all so that we may know and do your will. we pray in your sovereign name.

amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington d.c., june 14, 2012. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1 paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable tom udall a senator from the state of new mexico, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: daniel k. inouye president pro tempore. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i now move to proceed to calendar number 250 s. 1940. the presiding officer: the clerk will report.

the clerk: motion to proceed to calendar number 250 s. 1940 a bill to amend the national flood insurance act of 1968, and so forth and for other purposes. mr. reid: mr. president following my remarks and those of senator mcconnell if any the next hour will be divided and controlled between the two leaders. they will be equally divided. the majority will control the first half and the republicans the final half. we're still working to try to finish an agreement on the farm bill so we can move forward. it's really disappointing we don't already have something but hope is still here, and i hope we can get that done; a really important piece of legislation, but a few senators are holding this up, and that's too bad. i have agreed that we can have some amendments. i had a nice colloquy on the floor yesterday with senator coburn, who is concerned about this bill and legislation generally. he indicated he thought it was a

good idea to have a number of amendments and just start voting on them. so i hope we can get there. we can't do all 250 amendments that are out there but we can do a lot of them. let's see where we are. i hope we can get it done. on the flood insurance bill, we have to get to that, mr. president. the flood insurance expires at the end of this month. so we'll continue to work on agreement with the farm bill. i also hope to reconsider the failed cloture vote on the nomination of upon maria aponte to be ambassador to el salvador. votes are possible throughout today's session. the presiding officer: under the previous order the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, the following hour will be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees with the majority controlling the first half and the republicans controlling the final half.

mr. reid: i suggest the absence of a quorum, mr. president. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: mr. president might i ask that the pending quorum call be lifted? the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: mr. president

last december the environmental protection agency finalized a rule called the mercury air toxics standard for power plants. this rule is important and it was long, long, long overdue. many americans might not realize that before last december there were no federal standards for mercury or the other toxic air pollution pouring out of our nation's power plants. 32 years ago -- 32 years ago -- congress directed e.p.a. to limit toxic air pollution from all big polluting industries. in response, e.p.a. set standards for nearly 100

industries across our nation. however, until december there were no such standards for the utility industry. the biggest source of mercury arsenic and other toxic air pollution in the country. now there are standards in place. estimated to the provide $ $3 to $9 of health and economic benefits for every $1 invested in pollution controls. we should be celebrating this sensible yet significant public health achievement. yet from the other side of the aisle, we only hear about the $1 that the polluters have to spend to clean up. we never hear about the $3 to $9 that the rest of the public saves as a result of the

pollution being cleaned up. we hear about the cost to the polluters all the time. we never hear about the cost -- pick an asthma attack caused by soot and ozone. we never hear about the public health cost to all of us of the child having to go to the emergency room for an asthma attack. we never hear about the cost to the business, of the mom who's not at work dhai because work that day because she's off taking care of the child in an emergency room. or if he is she's working a regular wage maybe it is on her. maybe she doesn't get paid for that day because she's in the emergency room with with her child. we never hear about that cost. and how about the simple cost of a mother stuck in an emergency room with a child having a

pollution-provoked asthma attack waiting anxiously waiting for the nebulizer to kick? -- to wick kick in, waiting for the oxygen levels to show that they're back where they should be? that's not even counted the worry of a mom for her child having a pollution-caused asthma incident. we never hear about that. we never hear about the dollar side. all they talk about all we hear about from them is the $1 that the polluters has to pay to clean up their pollution; never in this case the $3 to $9 -- in other cases it is $35 to $1, over $100 to $1. instead, we have colleagues on the other side who want to halt this progress, notwithstanding the savings for virtually every american. with a resolution that we're facing now that would void these standards, standards that have just emerged after 32 years for

the first time regulating toxic pollution out of utility plants. this resolution would not only void the new standard, but it would bar e.p.a. from ever setting similar limits on power plants in the future. in speeches against these public health standards one of my colleagues appears somewhat confused about the mercury air -- confused about the mercury air toxic standards. this colleague has complained that the technology does not exist to meet these standards. that's the complaint that technology does not exist to meet these standards. but if you look at the clean air act it directs the e.p.a., as the e.p.a. did to set these standards based upon the performance of the top 12% in the industry the actual performance of the top 12% in

the industry. at least one out of every eight power plant units must already be meeting meeting each of the standards that is set. this is not a case in which the technology does not exist. this is a situation in which one out of every eightes plants eight plants is plants is already meeting it. what e.p.a. is doing is leveling the field so that utilities don't get competitive advantage by running dirtier power plants than their fellow utilities. this colleague has already complained that the rule establishes standards for toxic air pollution other than mercury mercury. well limiting all toxic air pollution at once is more efficient for the utilities than tack ling each pollutant separately.

frankly, if we were going at mercury once and then later arsenic and then over and over the utilities had to go back and recalibrate, we'd be hearing complaints that that was the wrong way to do it. so if you do it all at once, they complain. if you do it separately, they would complain. the bottom line is, anytime polluters are asked to clean up their act some people are going to complain. the -- section 112-d of the clean air act congress told e.p.a. that they shall establish emission standards for each category of major sources of the toxic air pollutants listed in section 112-c. congress provided a list of 180 pollutants which e.p.a. used as the basis for the power plant standards. you can't fault e.p.a. for that. moreover the staggering health benefits of this rule -- 4,700 fewer anticipated heart attacks

130,000 fewer cases of children with asthma symptoms, 5,700 fewer emergency room visits each year -- flow from limiting all toxic air pollution from power plants not -- not eliminating limiting -- all toxic air pollution from power plants rather than just mercury. i do not want to gloss over the importance of setting those federal mercury standards. as i indicated earlier, power plants are the largest source of airborne mercury pollution in the united states. mercury is a neurotoxin that can be most devastating to developing nervous systems. the reason we have the phrase "mad as a hatter" is because hatters use mercury in their

work. exposure can permanently reduce a person's ability to think and learn. for this reason, women of child-bearing age infants and children must avoid mercury exposure. what does this mean for rhode island? many of you have heard me talk about the out-of-state air pollution that plagues my state. most air pollution in rhode island is not scweng rated -- is not generated from within our borders. it is sent from hundreds, even thousands of miles away. it is sent by power plants out of state in significant measure. on a clear summer day in rhode island we'll be commuting on the work, we'll hear on the drive-time radio today is a bad time for rhode island. people with respiratory problems should stay indoors today. if kids have asthma, if they have a respiratory ailment they're congemmed condemned to stay

inside. so the same sources that create those bad air days for rhode island that force seniors and infants, children, people with respiratory difficulties to stay indoors on an otherwise fine summer day they also send us mercury pollution, which is why although rhode island does not have a single coal-fired generating unit in its borders we have to issue fish advisories. if there is one emblematic image of american families doing something in the yowlt out-of-doors, it is the parent taking their son or daughter fishing. norman rockwell has captured this image. yet today if a child goes fishing with her grandfather in rhode island, she cannot eat the fish she caught. the rhode island department of

health warns that pregnant women, women thinking of becoming pregnant, and small children should not eat any freshwater fish in rhode island. the health department also warns these populations not to eat some salt water fish because they have high levels of mercury stored in their fat. the health department suggests that no one in rhode island should eat more than one serving of freshwater fish -- not just women, children, women who are pregnant -- no one in rhode island should eat more than one serving of freshwater fish caught in our state each month in order to protect against mercury poisson poisoning. finally, the health department warns that nobody should ever eat any of the fish caught in the quidthree bodies of water in rhode island. for those of us who remember fishing as kids and eating what with we caught, that is sad

state of affairs and this is a state of affairs caused by polluters. and this cost of a family not able to go to quidnic reservoir to catch a fish, to take it home fry it up, to eat it is because of the polluters. mrs. boxer: will the senator yield at this point for a question? mr. whitehouse: of course. mrs. boxer: first can i just youthank you so much -- so much -- for taking to the floor today and explaining to everyone within the sowntsdz of sound of your voice that we face a very important vote because we have a colleague on the other siechtd aisle that -- on the other side of the aisle who wants to say that the environmental protection agency, stop your work, allow pliewtsers to continue to -- allow polluters to continue to poison this atmosphere. there's arsenic there's lead,

there's formaldehyde. we have to say to the utilities clean up your act. we're giving them enough time to do it. i wanted to ask my friend a question and then i will yield altogether to him. and the question is, is my friend aware that the cost-benefit ratio of this rule that senator inhofe wants to now repeal is 9-1. for every $1 that we put in to make sure that this pollution goes away or is controlled, there's $9 of benefits in health. is my colleague aware of that? mr. whitehouse: first of all let me thank my wonderful chairman from the environment and public works committee for joining me on the floor and asking this question. the figure that i've used -- i've been more conservative. i've said it's been within a range of $3 and $9. but there is a very significant payback. that payback actually counts hard dollars to the public.

it doesn't count things like, as i mentioned in my speerchtion -- as i mentioned in my speech, the worry of a mom spending the dmai an -- spending the day in an emergency room waiting for her child to recover. it doesn't take into account her economic off costs or her worry. it doesn't count the cost of a grandfather not being able to take a fish home from a pond. those are real costs if you have a traditional american kind of family and people go fishing together and do things like that. you can't do that any longer. that doesn't even count in the equation. the polluters get to take that away from america for free in that equation. but, as i said, what's interesting is that our friends on the other side only seem to think, only seem to notice, only seem to talk about the $is that the-- the $1 that the polluters

have to pay to clean up their act. they don't talk about the folks that get the jobs repairing the pollution, angz and they don't talk about the loss of education the long-term health damage that people undertake and while i have you on the floor, madam chairwoman let me tell you how proud i am of the job that you did yesterday on our bill -- on our highway bill, getting out there with those big trucks and with the big heavy paving equipment was a wonderful way of demonstrating to the public what is happening here, which is that the most important jobs bill that the senate has passed this year is being blocked by the house to eliminate or damage the summer construction season for highway work. in my state as i think i've told you, we have more than 90 jobs on the roster -- 90

prolings onprojects on the roster for this season's 0 constructionseason's highway construction. 40 of them have fallen off the roster. now they're trying to push for another delay that will push more projects off put more people oust work. ours was a bipartisan bill, couldn't have been more openly and transport transparently run by you and your colleague senator inhofe. everybody gets that our roads and highways need repaired and yet the republicans -- a group of republicans in the house of representatives will not agree to go forward on this, and time is running out on this summer's construction season. they get the biflt of benefit of knocking down jobs in the run-up to the election which i know is a disgraceful way to go about the nation's business. but we can't move them. the irony and tragedy here is if speaker boehner would just call

up this bipartisan senate transportation bill, it would pass. it would pass with republican votes and democrat votes and we could put people to work across this country right now doing the work that every american knows our highway system needs. this is not bridges to nowhere. this is bridges that people drive across to get to work. this is potholes and highways and places like 95 that tkpwu there prof -- that go through providence on a via duct and is falling apart so much that they put planks to keep pieces from falling on the car traffic underneath. we need these jobs. we need this work. it is so disingenuous and so cynical to stop this work just because there's an election coming. and what you did yesterday to press on that was really important, and i appreciate that. i see senator udall here, and i will yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from colorado is recognized.

mr. udall: mr. president i rise again today to continue the fight for our effort to extend the production tax credit for wind. i'm going to continue to return to the floor every morning until we get the p.t.c. extended. it has a positive economic effect on each and every one of our states, and we ought to immediately extend it. if we don't, there are tremendous risks because there will be uncertainty. there will be 37,000 jobs at risk per the estimate of the american wind energy association, in 2013 if we let this important crucial tax credit expire. on the other hand, looking at this positively, a recent study by navigant concludes a stable tax policy would allow the wind industry to create and save 54,000 jobs. that's a clear choice. do we want to lose 37,000 jobs

or do we want to create and save 54,000 more? over the last number of years in tough economic times the wind industry has been a bright spot. we've seen growth in the wind industry in the manufacturing side. and these are good-paying jobs. but we're really at a make-or-break moment for wind energy. if we let the wind p.t.c. expire we'll lose thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in investment. we also run the real risk of losing our position in the global economic race for clean energy technology. other countries are taking note. while we're dithering here in the congress, our foreign competitors are literally eating our lunch. and i am about to attend a senate hearing in the energy committee on our competitiveness in the clean energy sector, and we're going to be discussing how china is outpacing us in the clean energy economy. and the witnesses i know, will

emphasize -- because i've seen their testimony -- that we've got to improve and maximum manufacturing capacity or we run the risk of losing these jobs to overseas competitors. for example in north carolina there is a company p.p.g. industries a fiber glass company, hundreds of employees. they have been threatened by foreign competition in the last few years. fiber glass is a primary component of wind turbine blades, and the company has found new buyers in the wind industry. i want to quote the manager cheryl richards, of this factory. she has urged us to act and she said -- quote -- "that's investment in the u.s. that's investment in jobs, in technology, in the future in clean energy f. we're not doing it, there are people across the ocean who will. and they'll be happy to sell their products here." so while we can't get our act together in congress to pass the wind p.t.c., our economic competitors in usual and asia

have moved ahead. they've developed robust manufacturing capacity to serve both their domestic demands and now they're beginning to sell all over the world. and just to emphasize how real this threat is, i want to show all the viewers and my colleagues what's happened in the past when the p.t.c. has expired. look back in 2000. there was a 93% drop. there was a 73% drop in 2001 to 2002. that just doesn't make sense. i hear this from coloradoans. i hear this from americans. wind project developers in the united states and american manufacturers are not receiving orders. and we could see another boom-and-bust cycle where you get a 73% or 93% drop in installations. our economy doesn't need that, especially right now. so there's time for leadership here. it's time to show the american people that we can bridge partisan divides in the congress that we can act and

that we can take urgent action. let's get the wind p.t.c. reauthorized as soon as possible. it's within our power to stop sending jobs overseas, to prevent falling behind major economies like china germany india, and to stop harming domestic industries and manufacturing. again, look at this chart. this tells the story. we have to stand up and do the right thing. let's start by passing the wind p.t.c. extension now. we could do it today. i'm going to continue coming back to the floor of the senate, mr. president, until we get the wind p.t.c. extended. as my time begins to expire, i wanted to take a moment of personal privilege and note that fagill shaw who has been working in my office as a fellow from the state department, is leaving

my office this week. she is returning to the state department to continue doing her work there. i want to thank her for the phenomenal support she's given me for the knowledge and skills she's brought to my office. and i wish her well in her efforts at the state department. mr. president, with that, i yield the floor and i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new mexico. mr. udall: i would ask to vitiate the quorum call that's currently pending. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. udall: thank you mr. president. i would also ask unanimous

consent to speak for five minutes as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection, the senator from new mexico is recognized. mr. udall: thank you. mr. chairman -- or, mr. president, i also, as my colleague, senator whitehouse did, i want to thank chairman barbara boxer for her hard work and her leadership to protect our air and our public health on this crucial vote that's going to come up later this month. and i rise in opposition to the resolution of disapproval that we expect senator inhofe to offer. this resolution would permanently block the e.p.a. from reducing mercury and toxic pollution from power plants in the united states. the standard is called the maximum achievable control technology standard utility mact. by blocking this standard, this resolution is bad for public health. this resolution is also bad for

america's natural gas producers. this resolution is especially bad for electric utilities that did the right thing and followed the law. environmental protection should be a bipartisan issue. republicans and democrats both passed the clean air act the clean water act and other environmental laws by wide margins. i urge both parties not to support this resolution. here are some key points on the public health issues that are before us when this resolution comes to the floor. the environmental protection agency estimates this standard will save 4,000 to 11,000 lives per year by reducing toxic pollution. the e.p.a. also estimates the standard will prevent nearly 5,000 heart attacks and 130,000 childhood asthma attacks. mercury is a powerful neurotoxin. it is mostly a threat to

pregnant women and young children. we took lead out of gasoline. we can also take mercury out of smoke stacks. like many westerners -- and i know the gentleman -- the presiding officer i enjoy we both enjoy fly-fishing. in too many areas in america we have mercury advisories for fish from american lakes and rivers. in new mexico, most of our streams are under mercury advisories which means pregnant women and children cannot eat the fish from those streams. you cannot really put a price on healthy children, but if you tried, this rule produces tens of billions of health benefits each year. this resolution of disapproval could permanently block these benefits. i would also like to talk about the impact of this resolution on natural gas.

natural gas has much, much lower toxic emissions than goal. it has no mercury. it has no soot, known as particulate matter. recent discoveries of u.s. natural gas have led to a 100-year supply. natural gas prices are low and while that is actually bad for new mexico's economy in some places it's good for consumers. natural gas is increasing its market share in the power sector from 20% to 29% recently because it is a lower cost and cleaner fuel. e.p.a. standards do not ban coal but they do call on coal to compete on a level playing field and reduce its pollution. if we pass this resolution, we will inject further uncertainty into the utility sector, which is balancing its portfolio to more equal shares of coal and gas as opposed to being overly

reliant on coal. i support research and to finding ways to cle up coal. if we put our minds to it, we may be able to take out the toxic pollutants. i see the gentleman from arizona is on the floor. i first just want to thank him for allowing me a couple of minutes here to get my statement in. i would ask unanimous consent that my entire statement be put into the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. udall: and i would yield the floor and once again thank senator mccain. mr. mccain: if the senator from new mexico desires a few extra minutes, i would be more than happy to yield. mr. udall: thank you very much, senator mccain. i'll take one more minute here to just finish this, finish this off. and finally, i would like to note that this resolution is a bailout of companies who would rather spend money on lobbying than on pollution controls. the e.p.a. standard does not

harm responsible coal companies. it is achievable with current technology. it's my understanding that most or all of the coal plants in new mexico have already already have the technology to meet these standards. public service company of new mexico has invested in mercury controls to reduce pollution in our state. many other utilities have as well across the nation. a variety of business groups support e.p.a.'s mercury standard including the clean energy tkpraoup of utilities -- group of utilities the american sustainable business council and the main street alliance. these standards are required by the clean air act. if we block them, we will punish the law abiders and bail out the procrassty nay tors. i urge my colleagues to oppose the resolution of disapproval and once again i thank senator mccain from arizona and i yield the floor. mr. mccain: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona.

mr. mccain: mr. president, i note that the president residing the chair was paying close attention to the senator from new mexico. that i think's entirely appropriate for that to happen. i'm sure that it is, certainly has nothing to do with family allegiance. the senate is considering the farm bill, which we do every five years. during this debate, americans will hear speeches about spending reductions and cuts to farm subsidies. and i can see that there's some of that in this bill. unfortunately, so far we failed to have an open and fair amendment process. that should be the case in the united states senate. i have several amendments that i would like to have considered, and like my other colleagues, we've been prevented from doing so. i've been in this body for some years in consideration of

previous farm bills and i've always been able to have a couple of amendments considered and voted on. unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be the case in this consideration of this farm bill. it's very regrettable. it's very unfortunate that we can't just start voting on amendments and then see where we are. instead we have the filling of the tree and other language that most americans have no idea what we're talking about but really does prevent this body from considering the amendments of members on both sides of the aisle. it's unfortunate. also the fact remains that the programs authorized under this farm bill consume a colossal sum of taxpayers' dollars. this bill is over 1,000 pages and estimated at costs costs of $960 billion over ten years.

$96 billion over ten years. that's about $is billion per page. it is a 60% increase from the previous farm bill which passed in 2008. and i believe it is necessary to assist low-income families with nutrition programs. we should keep our farmers out of the red when a natural disaster strikes but i'm also mindful that taxpayers will saddled with a $1.5 trillion deficit and a about ballooning $15 trillion national debt. the farm bill is ripe for spending cuts. some have taken place not nearly as are necessary. and as usual a farm bill being 1,000 pages long is filled with special deals for special interests. i acknowledge the senate bill generates $23 billion in savings and that's a notable economy -- accomplishment. we've finally done away with

depression-era subsidies like farm payments and countercyclical program which compensates for depressed prices. unfortunately, it seems that congress's idea f of a farm bill reform is to eliminate one subsidy program only to invent a new one to take its place. cutting direct and countercyclical payments actually save the taxpayers about $50 billion rather than plug the money into deficit reduction, the farm bill blows $35 billion of its own savings on several new subsidy programs. for example, we have a new agricultural risk coverage subsidy program -- or a.r.c. -- which locks in today's record-high prices guaranteeing farmers up to an 89% on their

crop. we also create a new $3 billion cotton subsidy program called "stacks" that the brazilian trade representatives have signaled will escalate their w.t.o. anti-dumping complaint against the united states. i wonder how many of our taxpayers know that we already pay brazil $150 million a year to keep our cotton programs? why would we make things worse? this bill authorizes the creation of a new marginal loss subsidy program for catfish. this bill maintains the $95 billion federally-backed crop insurance program which also subsidizes crop insurance premiums. we then pile on a new $4 billion program called "supplemental coverage option" -- s.c.o. --

that subsidizes crop insurance deductibles. subsidized insurance subsidized premiums and subsidized deductibles -- i'm hard-pressed to think of any other industry that operates with less risk at the expense of the american taxpayer. this is all part of farm politics. in order to pass a farm bill, congress must find way to appease every special interest of every commodity association from asparagus farmers to wheat growers. if you cut somebody's subsidy you give them a grant. if you kill their grant then you cover their insurance programs. let's take a look at several other handouts that special interests have reaped into this year's farm bill, which may account for the size of the bill. $15 million to establish a new program -- a new grant program -- $15 million to establish a new grant program to -- quote --

"improve the u.s. sheep industry." we're going to spend $15 million of your taxpayer dollars to improve the u.s. sheep industry. the bill authorizes $10 million to establish a new usda department of agriculture program to eradicate ferril fairly pigs. $25 million to study the health benefits of peas, lentils and garbanzo beans. $25 million to study the health benefits of peas, lentils and garbanzo beings. -- beans. i know that mothers all over america that have advocated for their children to eat their peas will be pleased to know that there's a study they's going study that's going to

cost them $25 million to study the health benefits of peas, lentils and garbanzo beans. $200 million for the value-added grant program which gives grants to novelty producers like small wineries -- and i am not kidding -- the occasional cheese maker. $40 million in grants from the u.s. department of agriculture to encourage private landowners to use their land for birdwatching or hunting. now we're looking at a $1.5 trillion deficit this year. we're going to spend $40 million to encourage private landowners to use their land for birdwatching or hunting. i'm all for birdwatching. i support hunters not to the tune of $40 million. $700 million for agriculture and food research initiative.

$700 million for agriculture and food research initiative, which funds a variety of research grants like testing pine tree growth in florida or studying moth phermones. when did it become a national priority to study moth pheromones? a new program that spends $125 million to promote healthy food choices in schools. now, there are already at least four -- four -- other healthy eating education programs in this bill already. there are already 401(k)'s so we're going to add -- there are already four, so we're going to add another $125 million program

for another healthy eating education program. $200 million for one of my all-time favorites, which is the market access program which has been there for years which subsidizes overseas advertising campaigns of large corporations. we have, of course, the infamous mohair wool subsidy which has been fleecing the american people since 1954. when congress passed the 1954 farm bill, they wanted to ensure a domestic supply of wool for a military unit by paying farmers to raise among other things, an goreangora goats for for mohair. today we use mohair in custom socks, fashionable scarfs and trendy throw rugs. some may recall that congress killed off mohair subsidies in

the 1990's. unfortunately, goats are reputed to eat just about anything, and our hard-earned tax dollars are no exception. the mohair program which costs taxpayers about $1 million a year may not be particularly expensive compared to most farm programs. i suppose some of my colleagues have a government pittance for wool socks. this is an example of how special interests can embed themselves in a farm bill for generations. as if field corn and ethanol subsidies were nefarious enough, this farm bill includes a new carve-out for popcorn subsidies. i'm not making it up. popcorn subsidies. this is a perfect example of farm bill politics. thanks to a provision snucked into a 2003 appropriations boil, popcorn started receiving millions of dollars in

direct-payment subsidies. however, because the new farm bill eliminates direct payments, the popcorn industry is scrambling to be added to the newly created a.r.c. program. under in farm bill, popcorn will be subsidized to the tune of $91 million over ten years. according to c.b.o. the cooking oil that movie theaters use to cook popcorn is already subsidized as well as the butter they put on top. the price of popcorn has risen 40% in recent years thanks in part to ethanol and recent free trade agreements with colombia and south korea are creating a pome for american -- a boom for american popcorn exports. there isn't a kernel of evidence that they need this subsidy. the usda operates a complex system of import tariffs loans and government production quotas

that restrict sugar imports and keep sugar prices artificially high. the sugar barons will tell you that the department of agriculture's sugar program operates at -- quote -- "no net cost to the american taxpayers because sugar didn't receive direct payments." in actuality businesses and consumers bear the burden of a sugar program by paying higher costs for any sweetened product. every year american consumers are forced to pay an extra $3.5 billion on sweetened food products. just yesterday the senate voted to table an amendment to phase out the sugar program, which is a sweetheart for sugar growers -- deal for sugar growers. finally, mr. president one of my favorites of all time is the catfish. i have an amendment which will repeal a farm bill provision which directs the usda to create

a new fat cat inspection office. i am grateful for the support of my colleagues who have cosponsored the amendment. what we're attempting to do with this amendment is simple. the amendment puts eangdz to -- puts eangdz toputputs an end to stop catfish imports. as my colleagues know, the usda inspects meat, eggs, and poultry but not seafood. thus, a whole new government office is being developed at usda just to inspect catfish. catfish farmers have tried to argue that we need a catfish inspection office to ensure americans are eating safe and healthy catfish. i wholeheartedly agree that catfish should be safe for consumers. the problem is, f.d.a. already inspects catfish just as it

does all seafood. screening it for biological and chemical hazards. if there were legitimate food safety reasons for having f.d.a. inspect catfish we wonk be having this discussion -- we wouldn't be having this discussion. just ask usda. when the department of agriculture completes an internal assessment for the program in 2010, the department said it could not establish a ""rational relationship" between the catfish office and the risk to human health. the department of agriculture estimates that this questionable program will come at a cost to taxpayers of $30 million to create the office and $14 million each year thereafter. the government accountability office has also extensively examined the catfish office.

in february of 2011, g.a.o. released a report saying that the catfish office is at high risk for fraud waste and a. buse and that it is duplicative of f.d.a.'s functions and would fragment our food safety system. just last week g.a.o. issued a new report simply titled -- quote -- "responsibility for inspecting catfish should not be assigned to the u.s. department of alaska" and called upon congress -- the u.s. department of agriculture" and called upon congress to repeal it. when the senate considered the 2002 farm bill, they slipped in an obscure provision that made it illegal to label vietnamese catfish as "catfish" in the united states. at that time, the state department had recently reopened trade relations relations are vietnam and domestic catfish farmers in southern states found themselves

competing against cheaper catfish imports. domestic catfish farmers wanted to discourage american consumers from big vietnamese catfish by marketing under its latin name ponga, even though it is virtually indistinguishable from u.s.u.s.-grown catfish. it ultimately back p fired on catfish farmers because they remain popular with american consumers. it is a sense of the senateless law and my colleagues may recall dhaim to the floor to fight against it. i asked the question, when is a catfish not a catfish? why would congress pass a law that renames a species of catfish into something else? why would we single out catfish and put it in the same category as usda-inspected beef? ironically catfish farmers are lobbying usda to re-relabel

vietnamese panga back to catfish to ensure asian imports are subject to this new catfish office. so the catfish office offers no legitimate food safety benefit. its true goal is to erect trade barriers on asian catfish imports to prop up the domestic catfish industry and make american consumers pay more. so mr. president the farm bill before us is, has sod laudable parts to it. there are some reductions in spending. but when we examine the bill, we find more and more of these kinds of special interest, unnecessary spending and programs that either are protectionist in nature, programs that have been inserted sometimes in the past in the middle of the night and we have just begun to examine a number of provisions in this bill which

i did not discuss today. mr. president, i wish that the small business men and women in my state had a bill for small business a bill that would help them in the very difficult times that they are experiencing. in the terrible economic times which have caused them to not be in business any more, and they and their families going through the most difficult times. so this bill obviously is one that is well intentioned but i also think in these harsh economic times it is far far from the kind of legislation that we owe the american people. mr. president, i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

senator mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from nevada is recognized. mr. heller: i ask that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. heller: thank you. i rise today to discuss one of the biggest threats to economic growth in our country, and that's this administration's job-killing regulatory agenda p.

my goal in the senate to promote policies that create jobs. with my home state of nevada leading the nation in unemployment, i do not believe that the private sector is doing just fine and support commonsense poles that give our job -- policies that give our job creates the tools to provide for long-term economic growth. under the current administration they seem bent upon issuing regulation after regulation that threatens existing jobs and preventing new ones from being created. as i've stated before, you cannot be pro-jobs and anti-business at the same time. with unemployment at 11.7% in nevada and it continues to lead the nation in unemployment, the only things as scarce as jobs in nevada are private property and water. roughly 87% of nevada is controlled by the federal government and the remaining is

heavily regulated by the federal government also. nevada is also one of the dryest states in the nation. because of this water -- because of this water is a very precious commode tivment as we debated farm bill, i am proud to join with some of my colleagues to provide some much-needed regulatory relief for american farmers in rural america. however, the latest efforts by this administration go well beyond the agricultural sector. for years there's been a concerted effort to expand the regulatory reach over water in this country. after years of failed attempts to legislatively change the scope of regulatory authority over water the e.p.a. is now trying to overturn both congressional intent and multiple supreme court decisions to further their goal of overregulation. to put it into context if this regulation were enacted it would give the e.p.a. and the

army corps of engineers the ability to regulate irrigation ditches, large mud puddles or anything that contains standing water regardless of whether or not it's permanent seasonal, or manor- -- or man-made. this is not the intent of congress when writing the clean water act and congress has repeatedly rejected any legislative effort to alter the existing law. more disturbing, the administration has bypassed public outreach and has neglected to consider the economic impact of their proposed action. this is in addition to ignoring the fact that the supreme court twice affirmed the limits of the federal authority under the clean water act. but apparently the e.p.a. believes that it does not have to adhere to the laws of the land.

expanding the federal regulatory overreach into water also infringes on private property rights. it stops investments in development, infrastructure projects including housing schools, hospitals roads highways agriculture and energy. in my home state this regulation will hurt farming ranching mining, and construction -- the same middle-class blue-collar jobs this administration claims to care about. in an already struggling it economy, we cannot afford to create additional regulatory barriers that will cost jobs and prevent future economic growth. this is why senators barrasso, inhofe sessions, and i have offered an amendment to the farm bill as well as a stand-alone piece of legislation that will preserve the current definition of "waters of the united states." the preserve the waters of the u.s. act is simply

straightforward legislation that would preserve current definition of "federal waters" as well as uphold private property rights. opposition to this legislation has been disingenuous. it is ridiculous to assert that i or any other supporters of this important legislation are opposed to clean water. what i am opposed to is the federal government continuing its overreach and further hurting our economy and jeopardizing personal property rights and states' rights. i am opposed to giving washington bureaucrats the authority to regulate their backyard. and i'm opposed to this administration using closed-door process to issue job-killing regulations that have become far too common. i had hoped for a vote on this amendment that will allow the national to make a clear -- the senate to make a clear choice

between jobs and an extreme environmental agenda. unfortunately, the amendment process has once again been broken down and we will not have the ability to openly debate this important issue. i encourage my colleagues to support the preserve the waters of the u.s. act and show their constituents that they stand with job creators. there is a vast and diverse coalition of support for our efforts to limit the federal government's overreach. it includes local governments municipalities manufacturers small businesses, and many more. as an outdoorsman, i am committed to good steward shch our natural resources and believe that we do not have to choose between a healthy environment and economic prosperity. the preserve the waters of the u.s. act is a commonsense solution that will prevent jobs from being destroyed and keep private property rights from

being further eroded by this federal government. i respectfully urge all my colleagues to support this legislation and bring it to a vote. thank you mr. president. i yield the floor. and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from vermont is recognized. mr. sanders: i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sanders: mr. president i'll be speaking about two amendments which i intend to offer as part of the farm bill. i think both amendments are extremely important and both amendments have the support of the vast majority of the people of our country. it may not have the support of powerful special trrks interests but i think that from maine to california people will be supporting these amendments. the first one is amendment number 23010 -- 2310, which

cosponsored by senator barbara boxer of california. mr. president, all across our country people are becoming more and more conscious about the foods that they are eating and the foods that they are serving to their kids. and this is certainly true for genetically engineered foods. this is a major concern in my state of vermont. it is a major concern, i know, in senator boxer's state of california and in fact it is a major concern all over our country. this year in my state of vermont, our legislature tried to pass a bill that would have required foods that contain genetically engineered ingredients to have that information on their labels. and that information would simply give consumers in the state of vermont the knowledge

about the ingredients that were in the food that they are ingesting. not, i believe a terribly radical idea. i personally believe -- and i think most americans believe -- that when a mother goes to the store and purchases food for her child, she has the right to know what she is feeding her child what is in the food that she's giving to her kids and her family. this concern about genetically engineered labeling brought how the a huge turnout to the vermont state legislature of people who were supportive of this concept. in fact, it was one of the most hotly debated and discussed issues in our legislature this year. over 100 vermonters testified at a committee meeting the

agricultural committee meeting in the state of vermont in favor of this legislation. ware small state and hundreds more crowded -- we are a small state and hundreds more crowded into the statehouse to show their support. so what people in vermont and i believe all over this country are saying, simply and straightforwardly, is we want to know what is in the food we're eating and whether or not thatted into is genetically engineered. clearly this is not just a vermont issue. almost one million people in the state of california signed a petition to get labeling of genetically engineered food on the november ballot. and in california -- a big state a million peel -- that's a lot of people. in other words what we're seeing from vermont and california, all over this country, people want to know

what is in the food that they are eating and they want to know whether that food is genetically engineered. and i want to thank senator boxer of california for representing the people of her state in cosponsoring this legislation. but this is not just a vermont issue, it's not just a cal california issue. according to an msnbc poll in february of 2011, 95% of americans agree that label of food with genetically engineered ingredients should be allowed and those polling numbers have been consistent -- consistently over 90% dating back to 2001. so what we are seeing in polling year after year is people want to know what is in the food that they are eating. now, want everybody agrees.

monsanto one of the world's largest producers of genetically engineered food, they don't like this idea. monsanto is also the world's largest producer of the herbicide round-up as well as called round-up ready seeds that have been genetically engineered to resist the pesticide. it is no mystery why monsanto would fight people's right to know. business is booming for this huge chemical company. it raked in over $11 billion in revenues and cleared $1.6 billion in profits in 2011 and this year is going pretty well for monsanto. so once it seemed possible that vermont could pass the bill -- because the people of the state of vermont wanted to see that legislation passed -- but our friends at monsanto threatened to sue the state if that bill

was passed. montsadly -- and this is what goes on in politics, not just on this issue but on so many issues -- despite passing out of the howg agricultural -- out of the house agricultural committee by a vote of 9-1 the bill didn't make it any further because of the fear of a lawsuit from this huge multinational corporation. but today, we have an opportunity with the sanders-boxer amendment number 2310 to affirm states' rights to label food that contained genetically engineered ingredients. this amendment recognizes that the 10th amendment to the u.s. constitution clearly reserves powers to our system of federalism to the states and to the people. in other words that is what federalism is about.

this amendment acknowledges that states have the authority to require the labeling of foods produced through genetic engineering or derived from organisms that have been genetically engineered. simply put this amendment gives people the right to know. it says that a state if its legislature so chooses may require that any food or beverage containing a genetically engineered ingredient offered for sale in that state have a label that makes that information public and clear. it also requires that the commissioner of the f.d.a., with the secretary of agriculture shall report to congress within two years on the percentage of food and beverages in the united states that contain genetically engineered ingredients. mr. president, there are strong

precedence for labeling. the f.d.a., as everybody already knows, already requires the ladies and gentlemen of over 3,000 ingredients additives and processes. if you want to know if your food contains glutin, aspertame high fructose corn syrup transfats or msg you simply read the ingredients label. similarly, the f.d.a. requires labeling for peanuts wheat shellfish and others. but americans for some reason, are not afforded that same information when it comes to genetically engineered foods. now, here is a very important point to make. what i am asking now for the people of america is something that exists right now all over the world. genetically engineered foods are already required to be labeled in 49 countries around the world

world, including russia the u.k. australia, south korea japan, brazil, china new zealand and others and the entire european union allows its countries to require such labels which is essentially what this amendment is about. it is not telling but it is requiring -- it is allowing states the right to go forward if that is what the people of those states want. so if this is good for 49 or more countries around the world why is it not acceptable in the united states of america? and the answer is pretty simple that we have a large powerful multinational corporation who is more concerned about their own profits than they are about allowing the american people to know what is in the food that they are eating. let me clarify just the few

pieces of information regarding genetically engineered foods. monsanto claims that there is nothing to be concerned about with genetically engineered foods. in the 1990's, there was a consensus among scientists and doctors at the f.d.a. that g.e. foods could have new and different risks such as hidden allergens, increased plant toxin levels and the potential to hasten the spread of antibiotic resistant disease. but those concerns were quickly pushed aside in the name of biotechnology progress. their concerns were not however, unfounded. in may 2012, a landmark independent study by canadian doctors published in the peer-review journal "reproductive toxicology" found that toxin from soil, bacterium

which had been engineered into b.t. corn to kill pests was present in the bloodstream of 93% of pregnant women as well as in 80% of their fetal cord blood blood. in the wake of this study action is being taken. in three days, on june 17, the american medical association will consider resolutions that ask for studies on the impacts of g.e. foods and labeling, resolutions calling for labeling of g.e. foods have already been passed by the american public health association and the american nurses association. there is a great need for this information because there has never been mandatory human clinical trials of genetically engineered crops no tests for its possibility of causing cancer or for harm to fetuses no long-term testing for human health risks no requirement for long-term testing on animals and only limited allergy testing

testing. what this mean is that for all intent and purposes the long-term health study on g.e. food is being done on the american people. we are the clinical test. now, let me clarify just a few things about labeling genetically engineered food. g.e. food labels will not increase costs to shoppers. everybody knows that companies change their labels all the time time. they market their products differently and adding a label does not change this. in fact, many products already voluntarily label their food as -- quote -- "g.m.o. free." further, genetically engineered crops are not better for the environment. for example the use of monsanto round-up ready soybeans engineered to withstand exposure to the herbicide round-up has caused the spread of round-up

resistant weeds which now infest 10 million acres in 22 states with predictions of 40 million acres or more by mid-decade. resistant weeds increase the use of herbicides and the use of older and more toxic herbicides. further, there are no international agreements that prohibit the mandatory identification of foods produced through genetic engineering, but as i mentioned 49 other countries already require it. mr. president, the sanders-boxer consumers' right to know about genetically engineered food amendment amendment number 2310 is about allowing states to honor the wishes of their residents and allowing consumers to know what they are eating. if this is not a conservative amendment, i don't know what is.

americans deserve the right to know what they and their children are eating and that is what this amendment is all about. monsanto and other major corporations should not be the ones to decide this issue. the united states congress and the american people should make that decision. without commonsense labeling requirements the 295 million american citizens who favor labeling -- the overwhelming majority of americans who in poll after poll after payoff after poll said yes, they want to know whether the food they are eating contains genetically engineered products, they are not being listened to. so on behalf of the american people who want to know what is in their food, i urge support for this important amendment. mr. president, i have another amendment but i am going to come back at another time to talk about the amendment which would demand that the commodities

future trading commission do what the law requires them and that is end up -- end excessive speculation in the oil futures market. but i'll hold off on that until a later time. and with that, mr. president, i would yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey is recognized. mr. menendez: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that at 12:00 noon today, the senate proceed to executive expetion that the motion to proceed to the motion to reconsider the cloture vote by which cloture was not invoked on executive calendar 501 be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be agreed to and that there be 30 minutes for debate equally divided in the usual form and that following the use or yielding back of time, the senate proceed to vote on cloture on the nomination upon reconsideration. the presiding officer: is there objection? hearing none, so ordered. mr. menendez: with that, mr. president, i observe the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call: quorum call:

ms. stabenow: mr. president i would ask suspension of the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. the senator from michigan is recognized. ms. stabenow: thank you mr. president. first, i have eight unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. i ask unanimous consent that these requests be agreed to and that these requests be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. ms. stabenow: thank you mr. president. i want to spend a few moments talking about one of our titles, our job-creating titles in the farm bill, but first i do want to thank colleagues that are continuing to work through us as we do the business of the senate working through the amendment process and coming together with what i'm optimistic will be an agreement

for us to be able to move forward to complete our task on the farm bill, but i want to continue to thank my ranking member senator roberts for his leadership and his staff and my staff working together so hard. a lot of coffee involved, mr. president, for folks to be able to pay awake and some late nights right now but they're doing a great job. we are very optimistic as we move forward in this process. one of the reasons we need to get this done, as i have stressed many times but it's worth repeating again, is that this is a jobs bill. as the distinguished presiding officer snows from ohio as well as myself in michigan where jobs are a big deal, as they are across the country but we have been in the middle of it in terms of the recession and we're now seeming optimistic because

we are recommitting ourselves to make things and grow things in this country. we make a lot of great things in michigan not the least of which are automobiles, but a lot of other things also. i know in ohio as well, a great state for making things. but both of our states are also states where we grow things. i appreciate the leadership of the presiding officer who is on our agriculture committee and has played a very significant role in getting us to this point. major reforms in this bill that relate to moving to a risk-based system to support our farmers and based on a proposal that the distinguished senator, presiding officer senator brown has put forward. a bipartisan proposal. i appreciate very much your leadership on that as well as a number of other things. but it is about growing things. almost one out of four people in michigan have a job because we grow things. we have more diversity of crops than any state but california. so that means every page of the

farm bill matters to michigan. which is why over the years i have paid attention to every single page of the farm bill. but overall in our country 16 million people work because of agriculture. they may be involved in production they may be involved in packaging they may be involved in processing, they may make the farm equipment maybe a variety of things, but they work because we grow things in america. our one area of huge trade surplus where we have grown in the last few years 270%, our trade surplus is in agriculture. we are growing things here, creating jobs here and exporting. so this is a jobs bill. and i want to talk today specifically about a very important piece where we bring together making things and growing in our economy and that's the energy title of the farm bill. the energy title reflects the important work being done by america's farmers ranchers,

forest managers, rural small businesses to help improve our energy security. since we added this title in 2002, i was pleased to be a strong supporter of doing that. the rural energy for america program has helped put in place yearly 8,000 projects and jobs that help farmers lower their energy bills and actually produce electricity that goes back to the electric grid. in the last ten years, we have seen incredible advances in advanced biofuels and biobased manufacturing, which really is the ultimate at bringing together making things and growing things. both of which are supported and strengthened in this bill. the farm bill is also an energy bill. it's a jobs bill. there are more than 3,000 companies doing innovative biobased manufacturing using

agricultural products instead of petroleum to manufacture finished products, and those companies have already created over 100,000 jobs and growing every day. many of these businesses are in rural communities supporting those businesses is one of the best ways that we can create jobs in economic growth in small towns across our country. this kind of manufacturing is also a win-win for the farmers. they get new products for -- markets for their products, in some cases markets for their waste products. we have also seen tremendous growth in biofuels. this farm bill shifts our focus to the next generation of advanced biofuels, like cellulosic ethanol to continue lowering prices for families at the pump. according to a study by the university of wisconsin and the university of iowa, ethanol has already helped keep gas prices more than 1 dollar lower than

they otherwise would be. it's the only competition we have at the moment tougher at the pump. what we need as tourisms is more choice, more competition so that compensation on foreign oil is not the only choice. many of our colleagues have different feelings about our energy policies, and the great thing about the farm bill is that it doesn't matter what you believe, no matter where you come from, it's a winner because it creates choices. if you want to reduce greenhouse gas pollution this bill is a winner. if you want to make america more energy independent so we aren't relying so much on foreign oil this bill is a winner. if you want farmers to pay lower energy bills so they have more money to hire workers and improve their business, this bill is a winner. and if you want americans to pay lower prices at the gas pump, as we all do, this bill is a winner for every american. i especially want to thank

senator conrad, lugar harkin nelson ben nelson, senator bennet brown klobuchar thune casey and hoeven who worked very hard at putting together the energy title and the necessary funding to continue supporting these innovative farmers and businesses all across our country. i appreciate their leadership in working with us and being able to get this done. so let me talk about some of the specific areas that we have in the energy title. there is something called the rural energy for america program, reap. it's one of the most successful energy programs in the energy title and one we hear about most often from farmers and ranchers across the country. this program helps farmers with loan guarantees and grants to purchase and install renewable energy systems and make energy efficiency upgrades. farmers have been able to put

solar panels, wind turbines as well as biomass energy and geothermal and hydroelectric and other forms of renewable energy technology on the farm. since 2003, reap has supported 7,997 different energy-efficient projects that have generated or saved 6.5 million-megawatt hours enough power to meet the annual needs of nearly 600,000 households. now, i also want to say as a caveat that when we talk about all these alternatives, i also see this from the standpoint of making things, mr. president because when we look at a big wind turbine a lot of folks see energy use. i see 8,000 parts. we can make every one of them in michigan probably an awful lot of them in ohio. so when we talk about creating energy efficiency opportunities we're also talking about creating manufacturing jobs in

the process. it is a big success story which is why we continued the program, streamlined the application process for farmers and small businesses applying for small and medium sized projects. each project funded by rep. can have a significant impact on the utility costs incurred by the businesses. one company in georgia created an on-farm solar sometime stem that will produce about 60,000-kilowatt hours per year to lower the company's power bills. another company in kentucky used a grant-term prove lighting and support a refrigeration freezer project that would give them 63% energy savings. 63%. it's a pretty big deal when you're paying the bills. the next thing i'd like to do is talk about something called

biobased markets and part of a larger biobased manufacturing effort that i'm very enthused about. biobaseed manufacturing is rapidly becoming a critical component of our economy. there are 3,118 registered biobased companies in the united states that have created so far about 100,000 jobs and growing. with customers demanding more choices, oil prices rising, these innovative companies are taking new approaches turning agricultural products into manufactured products. so as you can see mr. president, all across the country, 3,000 companies and this is a huge area of growth and and innovation for us. where we literally are taking agricultural products, replacing chemicals replacing petroleum and plastics, doing a

variety of things that allow us to create new markets for farmers, get us off of foreign oil, and create jobs. and i would argue in the next five years we will see many, many many more dots on this map as a result of the farm bill and private-sector efforts that are going on across the country. in the 2008 farm bill we created the biobased program to develop and expand markets for these biobased products. these a few examples. papermate makes a biodegradable retractible grip pen manufactured by sanford rubbermaid in georgia. this pen is made from biodegradable components that include an exclusive corn based material to produce less waste and more compost. on the pen.

purell green instant hand sanitizer. it's a green product made in-con taining ingredients from renewable resources. it kills more than 99.9% of most germs, mr. president and it's a product that is biodegradable. greenware cold portion cups made by fabricar corporation in michigan are made from materials such as plant based and poiftd consumer recycled resins. my colleagues note this will look familiar balls it's the same kind of cup we use in the senate. this is something that we are using in supporting the biobased economy. by including biobased manufacturing in the biorefinery assistance program within the energy title, we are expanding

economic opportunities feerms by giving them new markets for crops to grow and we're supporting cutting-edge manufacturing businesses that are making these products and creating these jobs. we also have done other pieces that will strengthen this effort, and i might mention while we don't have a picture of it with us on a chart that one of the exciting things that i'm seeing in michigan as we bring together making things and growing things, the extent to which our automakers are using biobased products in the making of automobiles. and so for anyone who is buying a new ford vehicle today i sound like an advertisement mr. president, but new ford vehicle or a great new chevy volt or a number of other vehicles that we have, great american-made vehicles, today

you are sitting on seats made from soy based foam. you have soybean in the seats. soy based foam kelly actually started over 80 years ago with henry ford and has been something focused on on and off for 80 years but now it's becoming a major effort, major corporation in michigan, leer is making these seats and they're biodegradable lightweight, you get better fuel economy and as i often tell my friends, if you get hungry, you've got something to munch on. the truth is that we are seeing huge advances. if you -- you may very well have cupholders in your car that have a corn based or wheat based or other kind of agricultural base in the plastic rather than petroleum. another way we get off of foreign oil. they're experimenting with tires rather than using petroleum in tires. i think there's an explosion here of opportunity around.

innovation with our farmers and our manufactures -- manufacturers, with our universities and scientists, it's very exciting and it's part of the next generation for us of a new economy and new jobs. this farm bill strengthens that effort working with the private sector to help us rapidly move forward on jobs. and one of the other ways we do that in addition to supporting efforts to create commercialization of products, to be able to move forward as it relates to creating, producing more products and so on, is to give consumers a way to find these products. so we have something called the usda certified biobased product label. the mission of the biopreferred program is to develop and expand markets for biobased products through preferred federal purchases of biobased products,

across the federal government, and a voluntary labeling program to raise consumers' awareness and to help make sure that you know what you're buying is in fact a biobased product. since the program was created in the last farm bill, 2008, there are now 64 different categories of biobased products and almost 9,000 products, 9,000 products approved for preferred federal purchases. and everybody -- in everybody's best interest for us to be encouraging these new markets encouraging innovation at the same time addressing other critical needs for our country including getting off of foreign oil. in addition another 430 products from 150 companies have been certified to carry the usda certified biobased product label. so this is an important way there are new efforts happening, the president the

secretary of agriculture and i have come together to urge, in fact that we double -- we increase the amount of biobased labeling that's going on, and make sure that consumers are looking for this label. we then are the biorefinery assistance program which is a very important piece of all of this. the biorefinery assistance program was originally created in the 2002 farm bill to support the development and construction of demonstration scale biorefineries to determine the commercial viability of some of the processes that are involved in converting renewable biomass to advanced biofuels. it also guarantees loans for companies that are developing, constructing or retrofitting commercial scale biorefineries using these new technologies. in just the last two years

companies participating in this effort have created nearly 300 direct jobs and it's estimated that as this program is written into the 2012 farm bill, it will help innovative businesses hire another 450 people as well. we also expand eligibility for the program to include biobased manufacturing and mr. president, this is a very important piece of this. we are now going from refineries talking about advanced biofuels, to expanding the opportunity for tools for our biobased manufacturers within the rubric of the energy title and the focus on jobs. we're talking about loan guarantees for companies to leverage private dollars. so for just over $400 million in loan guarantees we've leveraged $1.5 billion in private dollars

to help companies with the cost of retrofitting and building a new commercial biofuel plant. when operational these facilities are expected to produce 113 million gallons of advanced biofuels and generate almost 25 million-kilowatt hours of renewable energy, and reduce green house gas emissions by an estimated 600,000 at the time mick tons of carbon dioxide which is the equivalent of taking 11,000 cars off the road. so i have a mixed feeling about that. but we'd prefer to do it this way and keep advanced vehicles on the road. in 2011 the usda awarded $6.9 million in grants and $13.1 million in loan guarantees to 17 an aerobic digester projects we're talking about waste on the farm, turning it into energy, and that would have powered enough power to

create energy for 10,000 homes. there's so many opportunities for us, whether it's animal waste, food waste we have a facility in michigan that will be opening in the fall that is up by gerber baby food. we are the international home of gerber baby food in fremont michigan. there is a new biobased facility opening up that will use all the food waste to generate energy, electricity for the northwestern area of michigan. so there's so many opportunities for us right now using again food waste by-products from agriculture where we can blend those together and create jobs, get us off of foreign oil. the biobased -- biorefinery assistance program has helped build seven first of the kind refineries to produce

biorefineries from florida michigan as i said, oregon, to new mexico. one of the companies in the new plant has just begun commissioning their plant in indian river county, florida which will use citrus and other municipal solidways to produce eight million gallons of ethanol every year, six megawatts of renewable electricity. they have over 100 people working on the job completing this first of a kind plant using 85% u.s. manufactured equipment by the way for the facility. so there's so many things. i could spend a long time going through all of the exciting efforts going on literally from the east coast to the west coast, north and south where creative entrepreneurs are coming forward with the support through the usda to be able to get them through what is often called the valley of death as they have a great idea but are

trying to get it to commercializations and efforts that are leveraging private dollars and public dollars to be able to have these companies move forward into full commercialization where they can create jobs, create renewable energy get us off of foreign oil or create other kinds of products all kinds of opportunities for us around products. that leads me to another important piece of this which is rand rand which is always a -- r&d which is always a very important part of what needs to be done as we look at these new preen pren new year's, large and small most start as a small business. some with a great idea. they're looking for how do they turn that into a great business and hiring people and so on. with the biomass research and development initiative is an intergradually component to bridging the gap between technology development and

commercialization. as i said, this is often called the valley of death. if you're a entrepreneur with a great idea, how do you actually convince somebody to invest in it so you can move forward. nearly 133 million in grants were provided through the research and development effort from 2003 to 2010 and they helped leverage $61 million in private investment. one of the great success stories among many comes out of wisconsin. we heard about this during one of our farm bill hearings when lee edwards c.e.o. of verent energy came in to tell us about the great work his company is doing. they were awarded a grant as seed money to develop their technology with the university of wisconsin. they now have over 120 employees, plans to expand again after receiving a contract from coca-cola to develop a 100%

plant-based bottle for cash natured -- carbonated beverages. verence technology is feedstock neutral, and provides drop-in jet fuel and renewable chemicals and their partners include cargo, coca-cola and shell. we also have the biomass crop assistance program which helps farmers and ranchers who want to plant energy crops for biomass that would be converted to biofuels or bioenergy. in 2011 in 2011, this supported between 3,000 and 4,000 jobs. our investment in the bcap program could result in companies hiring in this next farm bill we're told between 2,000 and 2,600 additional new employees. and we've also addressed issues around collection harvest -- collection harvest storage and transport to address problems

that had occurred in the last farm bill. this provides financial assistance to owners and operators of agricultural and nonindustrial private forestland as well, and we haven't -- i haven't talked a lot about forestland but certainly biomass, what's been done around forest by-products biomass efforts are very, very important as well. steve flick of shome energy received the first bcap project covering approximately 50,000 acres in 38 counties in missouri and kansas and individual farmers within the boundaries of the project can now sign contracts with the usda to grow dedicated energy crops. this is another provision that we have in the bill. shome's plant in centerview currently pellatizes crops into biomass fuel for space heat and electric power.

this technology will eventually provide liquid fuels that can replace gas clean and diesel and they -- steve flick also testified at our hearing in february. mr. president, i could go on and on with examples. we have a very exciting project i visited not long ago in alpena michigan, the northeastern part of the state which is a plant working with a paneling company decorative panels which is doing beautiful paneling work 100% wood paneling. they are now taking what used to be waste that they sent to a waste treatment facility. they are now pumping it right next door to a new company that is creating cellulosic ethanol and now looking for other products. one of them will be a new green biodegradable effort to deice

runways. so there are all kinds of possibilities. and what i'm excited about is this farm bill is focused on small businesses, farmers ranchers working with the forestry industry how do we grow the economy by taking the two great strengths that have created the middle class of this country: growing things and making things. that's what this title is about. that's what this bill is about. and i'm anxious to get us through this process so that we can complete this bill and get on to the next generation of jobs. thank you mr. president. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut is recognized. mr. blumenthal: thank you. i ask to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. blumenthal: thank you mr. president. first let me thank my distinguished colleague from michigan for her extraordinary

leadership on a milestone bill and i am so proud to be supporting this bill and to be in this chamber speaking with her on issues that really affect every american, not just those who may have farmers or may be recognized as farm states, but the kind of leadership that has just been heard i think is a model for all of us and i thank her. i want to talk today about two issues that directly affect the health and safety of americans of all ages but particularly our seniors and begin by associating myself with the remarks made earlier by senators whitehouse and boxer with respect to senate resolution 37. i strongly oppose efforts underway to roll back clean air act provisions that are critical to health and safety and well-being of every man woman

and child in this country. last december, the e.p.a. finalized a rule aimed at reducing mercury and other toxic emissions from electric generating units by about 90%. this rule affects the most toxic emissions in the united states: mercury, acid gas nickel, sill sillineum, cyanide. these efforts are more critical than effort. the effort to roll them back should be resisted and rejected. and i hope my colleagues will join with me in opposing the joint senate resolution that would not only stymie but stop efforts to protect americans against the most toxic emissions emissions. i fought for these kinds of protections as attorney general.

in fact, took action as attorney general to compel these kinds of rules and i believe that the e.p.a. is exacting responsibly now in promulgating them. i want to thank my colleagues on behalf of myself and senator kirk for approving yesterday a resolution designating tomorrow, june 15, as world elder abuse awareness day. the resolution that senator kirk and i offered and that this body passed recognizes the scourge that elder abuse represents here in america and around the world. i thank my colleagues for supporting it overwhelmingly and i thank the president of the united states for proclaiming tomorrow june 15, as world

elder abuse awareness day. and to secretary sebelius for announcing today that $5.5 million in funding for states and tribes will be available to test ways to prevent elder abuse neglect and exploitation. this initiative helps to implement the elder justice act which was enacted as part of the affordable care act and i believe that this kind of initiative brings together in partnership local state federal authorities and private groups to combat this epidemic. it is a spreading epidemic of abuse of elders. we have statistics that indicate how it is in fact, spreading. elder abuse incidents have increased by 150% in the last 10

years alone. a recent study of the g.a.o. shows that every year, 14% of all noninstitutionalized adults are victims of abuse or neglect or exploitation, whether physical or financial or even sexual. so the statistics show a trend that is undeniable. not only in the two million adults who are maltreated every year but in the 2.9 million -- i'm sorry $2.9 billion taken from older adults each year as a result of financial abuse and exploitation. $2.9 billion every year taken from older americans.

but the statistics tell only a fraction of the story because the fact is that 1 out of -- only 1 out of every 44 incidents of financial abuse is reported. 43 out of 44 incidents are unrecordunreported. and, in fact, of all incidents of abuse 22 out of 23 are unreported. and the reasons are diverse. there may be shame embarrassment. in fact, one of the most common reasons for underreporting is that the victim is related to the perpetrator. sadly, shamefully, tragically all too many victims of elder abuse suffer at the hands of relatives. it may be a daughter or son.

it may be a brother or sister. and all too often they are victims at the hands of caregivers who are entrusted with their care literally in positions of trust for people who may suffer physically from debilitating illnesses or from dementia or other kinds of afflictions. and so this population is among our most vulnerable and we must take stronger steps to protect them. as attorney general i sought to lead such efforts and in fact, connecticut now has stronger measures against elder abuse such as more thorough background checks, as a result of these initiatives. as a member of the committee on aging, i held a hearing in hartford very recently to document this spreading epidemic

and the way it affects all of us, all of our relatives all of our friends. it cuts across all lines of geography, race, gender even income group. and so this epidemic must be stopped. and that is why this resolution is important in calling attention to the problem. the president's proclamation enhances awareness and i thank my colleagues for their continued effort and their involvement in this cause. what's required at the end of the day is more resources. more resources for law enforcement authorities that have such a critical role in protecting those who suffer from it and deterring those who would commit it. and partnerships among state local and federal authorities. those partnerships must seek out

and encourage greater reporting so that efforts can be taken to stop and deter it. i will continue this battle. i thank my colleagues for joining me and for approving this resolution and for demonstrating that we care. we care as a body and as an institution. it is not a republican or democratic issue. it is truly bipartisan because this generation has worked hard accumulated savings counted on security and is depending on us, trusting us for their safety. and we know that the number in this age group will only grow -- in fact, double -- within the next years. and that is why we must address it, and i thank again my

colleagues for doing so. thank you mr. president and i yield the floor. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: